(I saw an "pro" once...shooting a wedding in jpeg...I just HAD to wonder how the detail looked in the bride's dress..my thought was..."why buy a 5dIII to shoot jpegs...wouldn't the Rebel have sufficed?..I guess it only mattered to me.. So I think that makes me a snob....oh well.....).

#11, Insist a video is 100% CGI when it's creators state that it's not, support that statement with quotes from the creators that state that it's not.

Or, misrepresent what somebody else actually said, at what point did anybody say it was 100% CGI? Or be 100% wrong and not admit it. Or jump threads and criticise people, unfairly and incorrectly. Or hold Canon, or any other corporation, up to ridiculous personal ideals and expect disillusion levels of transparency and "honesty". Or run away when you are taught something and be a bitch about it rather than appreciate the learning experience.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

..... …...digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?

She says "The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . ....

You missed majority right there, kind of implies that while the majority of images were composites, some were not.At no point did you ever concede that any of that video might have been shot in camera, you repeatedly insisted emphatically that it was CGI, just GCI, 100% it is CGI.

Yes, please crawl out. I phrase my writings carefully. When I am less that 100% certain of any topic, I use terms like might, possibly, maybe, could, not 100%, is, certain, conclusive etc.Even in light of multiple examples from others, including links from yourself to a Franz Lanting example and an entire flickr page demonstrating the concept and technique for showing reflections from distance showing clearly on the surface of an eye, the eye being the focus point of the camera/lens, you continued going on about auto focus blather which is totally irrelevant from a technical standpoint. You apparently learned nothing even from your own examples, possibly forgot some that you might have known previously.

I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them.---“If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots” – Robert Kiyosaki“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark TwainThis idjit is done.

(I saw an "pro" once...shooting a wedding in jpeg...I just HAD to wonder how the detail looked in the bride's dress..my thought was..."why buy a 5dIII to shoot jpegs...wouldn't the Rebel have sufficed?..I guess it only mattered to me.. So I think that makes me a snob....oh well.....).

..... …...digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?

She says "The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . ....

You missed majority right there, kind of implies that while the majority of images were composites, some were not.At no point did you ever concede that any of that video might have been shot in camera, you repeatedly insisted emphatically that it was CGI, just GCI, 100% it is CGI.

Yes, please crawl out. I phrase my writings carefully. When I am less that 100% certain of any topic, I use terms like might, possibly, maybe, could, not 100%, is, certain, conclusive etc.Even in light of multiple examples from others, including links from yourself to a Franz Lanting example and an entire flickr page demonstrating the concept and technique for showing reflections from distance showing clearly on the surface of an eye, the eye being the focus point of the camera/lens, you continued going on about auto focus blather which is totally irrelevant from a technical standpoint. You apparently learned nothing even from your own examples, possibly forgot some that you might have known previously.

I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them.---“If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots” – Robert Kiyosaki“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark TwainThis idjit is done.

I am not the one with reading comprehension issues, "100% it is CGI" does not mean, 100% of it is CGI.

Love your selective quoting too. Did I not say these too?

Quote

"I knew from first look some of them had to be CGI,some are very easy to do without, the first 16 seconds for instance, the sparklers, the spotlights etc, but some are impossible to film directly, the surfer, the boxer, the meteorite etc. "

Quote

As is the meteor shot, which castes doubt on most, if not all, the others.

And gave you quotes from the artists that created it like this.

Quote

"Shot almost entirely as separate elements, the eyes and the reflection plates were composited seamlessly together."

Quote

"The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . It was our job then to composite in the various reflections".

You were the one saying Canon wouldn't use CGI with comments like this, "On further reflection, why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI in a corporate production? They make and sell the gear that makes such a production possible, surely they also have access to the talent and experience to execute." And "I continue to doubt that Canon would resort to CGI to promote imaging gear, this was not an Adobe, fake what you can't do for real, production." I wasn't saying they never don't use CGI.---------------------

Here are some more fool quotes for you too

“The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.” - Winston Churchill.“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Søren Kierkegaard“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.” ― George Gordon Byron “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain--and most do.” ― Dale Carnegie“The greatest fools are ofttimes more clever than the men who laugh at them.” ― George R.R. Martin“A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.” ― Molière“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt.” ― Leah Wilson“What have you done when you have bested a fool?” ― Charles Portis

And with Charles, I leave you, though I couldn't do you the favour of blocking you, after all who would point out your foolishness next time?

« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 10:57:13 AM by privatebydesign »

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

I am learning to shoot large format 4 x 5 (B&W), and am awaiting my first photo encounter with a high-end Canon or Nikon user. Great opportunity for reverse snobbery - film, old format, old bellows camera, really old (circa 1960) single-coated lens.

Good for you! A couple of years ago I came across someone photographing autumn leaves behind some historic buildings here in Philadelphia using a similar camera on a huge wooden tripod - looked marvelous.

..... …...digital artists that was responsible for the actual work, Brenda Busstra-Smink?

She says "The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . ....

You missed majority right there, kind of implies that while the majority of images were composites, some were not.At no point did you ever concede that any of that video might have been shot in camera, you repeatedly insisted emphatically that it was CGI, just GCI, 100% it is CGI.

Yes, please crawl out. I phrase my writings carefully. When I am less that 100% certain of any topic, I use terms like might, possibly, maybe, could, not 100%, is, certain, conclusive etc.Even in light of multiple examples from others, including links from yourself to a Franz Lanting example and an entire flickr page demonstrating the concept and technique for showing reflections from distance showing clearly on the surface of an eye, the eye being the focus point of the camera/lens, you continued going on about auto focus blather which is totally irrelevant from a technical standpoint. You apparently learned nothing even from your own examples, possibly forgot some that you might have known previously.

I'd consider it a favor if you would please, block me so you won't reads my posts nor offensively reply to them.---“If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots” – Robert Kiyosaki“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark TwainThis idjit is done.

I am not the one with reading comprehension issues, "100% it is CGI" does not mean, 100% of it is CGI.

Love your selective quoting too. Did I not say these too?

Quote

"I knew from first look some of them had to be CGI,some are very easy to do without, the first 16 seconds for instance, the sparklers, the spotlights etc, but some are impossible to film directly, the surfer, the boxer, the meteorite etc. "

Quote

As is the meteor shot, which castes doubt on most, if not all, the others.

And gave you quotes from the artists that created it like this.

Quote

"Shot almost entirely as separate elements, the eyes and the reflection plates were composited seamlessly together."

Quote

"The majority of the eyes where shot clean with no active reflections . It was our job then to composite in the various reflections".

You were the one saying Canon wouldn't use CGI with comments like this, "On further reflection, why would our beloved Canon, the long standing dominator of the pro imaging market resort to CGI in a corporate production? They make and sell the gear that makes such a production possible, surely they also have access to the talent and experience to execute." And "I continue to doubt that Canon would resort to CGI to promote imaging gear, this was not an Adobe, fake what you can't do for real, production." I wasn't saying they never don't use CGI.---------------------

Here are some more fool quotes for you too

“The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes.” - Winston Churchill.“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Søren Kierkegaard“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.” ― George Gordon Byron “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain--and most do.” ― Dale Carnegie“The greatest fools are ofttimes more clever than the men who laugh at them.” ― George R.R. Martin“A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool.” ― Molière“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves and wiser people so full of doubt.” ― Leah Wilson“What have you done when you have bested a fool?” ― Charles Portis

And with Charles, I leave you, though I couldn't do you the favour of blocking you, after all who would point out your foolishness next time?

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining.

How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"?

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.

But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body. And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200). Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining.

How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"?

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.

But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body. And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200). Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!

I will keep that in mind, and approach his page with that attitude. I've only briefly looked at it years in the past...it must have been off-putting to me even then, lol. Doesn't the tape leave a residue? I've had to clean it off lenses before (not my own). No doubt you have good reason for using it though, so I didn't mean to question your motivation. It's just I think of people doing the opposite, putting red tape to make a ring on a lens that doesn't have one! Lol...

I am delighted to hear that anything I said about the 135L, helped you in any way. That you are enjoying it is a very thick chocolate icing on the cake! I look forward to seeing some images you get from it, if you ever share them.

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining.

How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"?

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.

But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body. And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200). Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!

I will keep that in mind, and approach his page with that attitude. I've only briefly looked at it years in the past...it must have been off-putting to me even then, lol. Doesn't the tape leave a residue? I've had to clean it off lenses before (not my own). No doubt you have good reason for using it though, so I didn't mean to question your motivation. It's just I think of people doing the opposite, putting red tape to make a ring on a lens that doesn't have one! Lol...

I am delighted to hear that anything I said about the 135L, helped you in any way. That you are enjoying it is a very thick chocolate icing on the cake! I look forward to seeing some images you get from it, if you ever share them.

I sure hope so. I am slowly beginning to post images- being in an august company as this forum is very intimidating to an amateur (not just literally) like me.

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining.

How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"?

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.

But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body. And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200). Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!

I will keep that in mind, and approach his page with that attitude. I've only briefly looked at it years in the past...it must have been off-putting to me even then, lol. Doesn't the tape leave a residue? I've had to clean it off lenses before (not my own). No doubt you have good reason for using it though, so I didn't mean to question your motivation. It's just I think of people doing the opposite, putting red tape to make a ring on a lens that doesn't have one! Lol...

I am delighted to hear that anything I said about the 135L, helped you in any way. That you are enjoying it is a very thick chocolate icing on the cake! I look forward to seeing some images you get from it, if you ever share them.

I sure hope so. I am slowly beginning to post images- being in an august company as this forum is very intimidating to an amateur (not just literally) like me.

Don't be intimidated, please!! Apparently a good bit of the images I post, are thought of as sucky...so I don't post too many! Lol...Also, some of my friends on here, feel intimidated too, yet they still post theirs. And most of them are better photographers than me...or else they get better results than me much of the time. Of course their gear costs several times what mine does, and that's a big factor, especially for telephoto shots of wildlife or sports, etc. So much of getting a great shot, is being in the right place at the right time, and having the right lens on the camera when it happens. I don't see much studio work posted here; I suspect they don't want to show that because it's not meant for public distribution...which is very understandable. The 135L is quite a good studio lens, as you no doubt already know. I don't have a studio...

But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body. And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Rockwell says enough silly things (often contradicting himself) that you don't need to make stuff up to criticize him. Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness, or say anything negative about the lens's optical performance aside from "significant axial chromatic aberration at close distances" at f1.8? Rather, he states that "optically this lens is extraordinary" and that "if you don't mind the weight and don't worry about the future ... [it] works fantastically well today." He does make his usual comment about many people worrying to much about sharpness (he may have a point), but the reasons he gives for not wanting one himself are its size and weight, lack of IS, his fondness for the Nikon 35mm DX, and worries about long term performance and compatibility with future camera bodies.

Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness,

He doesn't "say" sharpness is a bad thing, but he "holds" it as a negative factor, because he associates sharpness with amateurs, instead of praising it as a feature.

Quote

Warning 1: Image sharpness depends more on you than your lens.Warning 2: Lens sharpness doesn't mean much to good photographers.Amateurs waste too much time worrying about lens sharpness, and since this lens is designed for amateurs, it's super sharp.

or say anything negative about the lens's optical performance aside from "significant axial chromatic aberration at close distances" at f1.8? Rather, he states that "optically this lens is extraordinary" and that "if you don't mind the weight and don't worry about the future ... [it] works fantastically well today."

And I quote myself "(even he had to agree it is optically superior)". I never said he has said anything negative about the optical quality of the lens, I said exactly the opposite.

He does make his usual comment about many people worrying to much about sharpness (he may have a point), but the reasons he gives for not wanting one himself are its size and weight, lack of IS, his fondness for the Nikon 35mm DX, and worries about long term performance and compatibility with future camera bodies.

Here is his comment on the build of the 35mm:

Quote

The Canon L lens is all-metal, and optically superb as well. This Sigma is nowhere near L quality mechanically.

Don't ignore the forest for the trees. Reading both the Sigma reviews, don't you feel he goes to great lengths to bash these lenses when everyone else is praising them? And that was my point about brand name fanboys who bash third party lenses, even if they are really good, in relevance to the previous posts I quoted. While I am generally against criticizing Ken Rockwell for the heck of it (see link below), it was appropriate here.

Why do you feel the need to start an argument by claiming "I am making things up"? You could have nicely asked for a clarification. Because online posts are anonymous, we don't need to be polite and courteous to each other, is that it?

Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness,

He doesn't "say" sharpness is a bad thing, but he "holds" it as a negative factor, because he associates sharpness with amateurs, instead of praising it as a feature.

Quote

Warning 1: Image sharpness depends more on you than your lens.Warning 2: Lens sharpness doesn't mean much to good photographers.Amateurs waste too much time worrying about lens sharpness, and since this lens is designed for amateurs, it's super sharp.

[....]

Why do you feel the need to start an argument by claiming "I am making things up"? You could have nicely asked for a clarification. Because online posts are anonymous, we don't need to be polite and courteous to each other, is that it?

OK, apologies for the tone - I perhaps should have said that your interpretation of his comments on sharpness is not persuasive. They don't read like that in isolation, and you will find language to that effect in every lens review he writes (every one I've read, at any rate), regardless of who makes the lens, and regardless of whether he likes it, including all his Nikon and Canon favorites. It seems to be part of his review template. Nowhere does he say that sharpness is a negative factor - it's part of his insistence that sharpness is overrated and that sharpness also depends on factors beyond the physical properties of a lens.